[Bug 56155] New: Possible nullpointer dereference in NtUserThunkedMenuItemInfo (Coverity)
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56155 Bug ID: 56155 Summary: Possible nullpointer dereference in NtUserThunkedMenuItemInfo (Coverity) Product: Wine Version: 9.0-rc3 Hardware: x86-64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ntdll Assignee: wine-bugs(a)winehq.org Reporter: dark.shadow4(a)web.de Distribution: --- Not exactly what Coverity reported, but NtUserCheckMenuRadioItem is missing a nullpointer check. We have the following code:
case NtUserCheckMenuRadioItem: return check_menu_radio_item( handle, pos, info->cch, info->fMask, flags );
We probably should check "info" for NULL here as well. Coverity link: https://scan5.scan.coverity.com/reports.htm#v60945/p10088/fileInstanceId=257... -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56155 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #1 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> --- There's no need to check pointers in syscalls. Also please don't file bugs for Coverity warnings, most of them are false positives. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56155 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #2 from Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> --- Closing. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56155 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Maurer <dark.shadow4(a)web.de> --- How exactly will that work with pointer checking in syscalls going forward? I thought that is needed to give the right return code, like ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER over STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION? -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
participants (1)
-
WineHQ Bugzilla